246 Matching Results

Search Results

[Letter from M. B. Wilhoit to John Sayles, November 21, 1932]

Description: Letter from M. B. Wilhoit to John Sayles stating his pleasure in knowing Sayles will be on the job in St. Paul, and the marketability of the work that is to be created. Wilhoit mentions judges he has spoken to who have notes that might be included in the work Sayles is to write and discusses forms to not be included.
Date: November 21, 1932
Creator: Wilhoit, M. B.
Partner: Hardin-Simmons University Library

[Letter from John Sayles to M. S. Long, May 3,1932]

Description: Letter from John Sayles to M. S. Long discussing a form that sustains the plea that N. E. Fielding is a necessary party defendant in the case. John Sayles had been previously contacted to move the case of Sam Underwood et al vs. Gulf Refining Company to the 104th distract court in which David W. Stephens is in agreement with.
Date: May 3, 1932
Creator: Sayles, John
Partner: Hardin-Simmons University Library

[Letter from John Sayles to J. E. Pearson, 1932-06-27]

Description: Letter from John Sayles to J. E. Pearson discussing the amount of work this project requires and the time that Sayles would be away from his own law practice in Abilene. Sayles states that work is tentative and the discussion is not a binding contract. He asks about length of time in St. Paul, salary and royalties paid.
Date: June 27, 1932
Creator: Sayles, John
Partner: Hardin-Simmons University Library

[Letter from John Sayles to M. B. Wilhoit, December 3, 1932]

Description: Letter from John Sayles to M. B. Wilhoit endorsing the inclusion of forms. Sayles does not want to do the extra work of preparing forms but believes they would add value to the book. Sayles is reluctant to undertake a work with which he knows he will be dissatisfied and states he does not approve of all of Stayton's forms.
Date: December 3, 1932
Creator: Sayles, John
Partner: Hardin-Simmons University Library
Back to Top of Screen